Take it apart, it doesn't work. It's just as bad at doing big things as it is at little things. It's time to call the beast dead.

Government does everything badly and nothing well. I didn't think my own public education was bad until it was time for my children to learn. What I thought I knew that wasn't so ---- has completely horrified me. I thought that I was a member of an educated class and a smart guy at that, but I found that people's homeschooled children who had single mothers on welfare were more polite, better informed, more poised, and just plain better people than I knew children could be. Then I met Amish children -- the products of what would seem to be a completely outdated school system were outpacing the best kids I knew. When I saw how badly government was distorting education -- had distorted *my* education -- it was only a short jump to see that it managed education just as well as the other tasks it takes on. It's got to go. Local people can do better, even when they have practically no tools to do so than a hugely funded government program can.

Many government functions should be public, but refusal to even think about privatizing some functions is just wasteful.

In government, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to privatizing anything under its purview, and that's a shame, since they could save taxpayer money. Take, for instance, the case of the United States Postal Service. As use of email and the internet increases, mailing volume decreases, which has caused the USPS to lose money for many years. This situation offers us a chance to experiment with privatizing a service that is still necessary, but less essential. UPS and FedEx can get a package to someone in most areas for cheaper than the USPS, so why not letters? If it doesn't work out, then it can be phased out. Similar experiments should be tried with other functions that aren't completely essential. We might be surprised at the results.

The public sector needs help from the private sector to satisfy societal values.

The government's main goal is to satisfy it's citizens in a variety of different ways: better transportation, better national security, better education, as well as allowing for citizens to keep more of their well-earned money. With that said, sometimes the only way to satisfy all these different societal values is to privatize. Sometimes, the only way for the community to become more satisfied with the government is if the private sector steps in and allows for the citizens to pay less and get more for their money.

My thesis for a research paper I'm doing, but these three points are a fair argument. Of course, I don't believe we should privatize military.

Business-run public service is a great idea that can help encourage private industry and keep the federal government in its boundaries where it functions best; these services would save taxpayers' money because they would lessen the government payroll, lessen the workload of certain agencies to allow them to focus on their core objective, and provide relative freedom to operate outside of political constraints.

Privatization Leads to Higher Wealth and Greater Freedom to Business Owners

Without Government regulations, businesses have a chance to create greater wealth for themselves without the government taxing the crap out of them. Public services turning to private will create more competition because multiple businesses will compete provide their service better. There are already so many useless programs that take money from tax payers such as United States Postal Service. Why pay for a service you don't use when there are already better private services out there like FedEx or UPS that the American people don't have to pay for?

Its Just as Bad as One Person Running a Business

We should at least privatize some aspects of it that not everyone uses. We need to lower the debt ceiling severely even if it is slowly we need to get back on track. People are being taxed for many things they dont use. The debt ceiling is too high and it really needs to be lowered

Democracy is a public thing

Democracy, Unity and Freedom can only be sustained in a public sphere. Private, particular interests on the other hand contradict these values!To all of you obsessed with 'efficiency', please remember the 33rd President of the U.S.' words: "Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship." Or is that exactly what you want?

Yes, of course!

Governments should be possible to start, just as with companies. This would create competition and in the end lead to a much better life than you could have in this kind of system. Who would you trust more, someone who you paid to protect you and who’s livelihood depends on your continuing to pay them, or someone who steals from you in the form of taxes? No matter what they do, they will always gets paid and that's the problem!

Yes it should

The government should have as little to do with enterprise and should promote a free market; not help create a socialist state, by this i mean man should be capable of doing things for itself without the help of others. It might seem cruel, but capitalism is the best economic system so far.

Because a country wouldn't have enough

Because, Imagine a country with nothing from the outside it would be just like a self centered person living their lives in their perspective of the world. For example what if Donald J. Trump actually was built, People from mexico who were originally there would have a hard time with it, Including the fact that it would be hard to travel, And people won't have the needed recourses to continue stores which sell mexican food like : Taco bell etc.

A privatized government is an oligarchy

Privatization is a means for a single person or entity to take control of that privatized thing; if government was a privately owned company, the citizens they governed would not be the owners of that property: A wealthy entity- such as a corporation- would, and thus the general population would be held hostage to the desires of their owners. This is more or less the state of things now, but it goes unrecognized. Many people seem to forget that if X is private, then *someone other than you owns it*. After all, if X is a 'commons', like land and water once were, then everyone was allowed to access it- everyone 'owned' the land, and some people farmed it. Privatizing land removes the general right of all persons to feed themselves, house themselves, etc. by forcing everyone who does not own X abstain from it or pay for it.

No, Privatization is terrible for everyone except the contractors.

It's a terrible and I mean terrible idea to privatize. Private companies exist to make money, public services exist to serve the public. Making a system where making money trumps good service is just a bad idea. Often corners will be cut, experienced staff will be cut for lesser skilled and far less paid newcomers. If you have something wrong with a public service you can go to the government and have it addressed, with a private corporation you can't do anything should they screw the pooch, so to speak. All the trends show that privatizing companies makes costs go up and quality of service decline, every single time in a nearly universal system.

Public Loss= Private Profit

Tax payer money should benefit the public at large, and not enrich a few individuals. Stripping oversight for short term profit instead of longer term gains for society as a whole is not only wrong but destructive for societies in every country. Unless you are part of the one percent and are trying to keep your enormous fortune growing at a conservative rate it makes no sense to give up public works for private profit. Government does need to be trimmed in my opinion, but that does not mean privatization is the answer.

No, the government is far too privatized as it is

If the government was an open-source and transparent public service entity run and controlled by the citizens of the society the government pertains to, citizens of societies would be a lot better off. The privatization and non-transparency of government has led to a massive amount of corruption and an overall lack of interest in the well-being of the national public.

I only copied it. -_-

Broad Goverment Corruption More than not a political representatives can be linked to the major beneficiaries of large privatized contracts. Often times contracts are given illegally. Keeping civil service employees takes the greed/profit factor away. Civil service members can only make a check in return for a service they cannot demand more money for a particular service.

Broad Goverment Corruption

More than not a political representatives can be linked to the major beneficiaries of large privatized contracts. Often times contracts are given illegally. Keeping civil service employees takes the greed/profit factor away. Civil service members can only make a check in return for a service they cannot demand more money for a particular service.

Privatization of government functions (outsourcing) opens the door to abuse.

Snowden is an example of how a person with a GED but ample talent can be transformed from a security guard to a $200k contractor at Booze Allen Hamilton. The abuse is that anybody with a Top Secret clearance (or other attribute) can be hired away from government service and leased back at an exorbitant rate for Booze Allen. Decentralizing or outsourcing some functions of government just grows the "ghost" government of contractors in the government-industrial complex.

Privatization changes the meaning of people

The only motive private companies have for doing anything is for profit. That, in its self, isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when this lust for profit is let loose upon functions of the government that affect large populations, the meanings of the words 'citizen' or 'person' are abolished and replaced with the meaning of '$$$'. Helping people with these services isn't a motive at all, the real motive is the profit that is generated from doing so.

Privatization could also lead to monopolies of the services under control of private companies. This is bad because the motive of profit (being stronger than the motive to help people) would give companies the incentive to provide worse and worse service and raising the prices higher and higher. This is seen in the privatization of water in Bolivia. Bechtel raised the price of water, and the citizens became unable to pay for the water that was being put up for sale. This raised the poverty level in Bolivia up 2% and prompted citizen riots.

What happens when privatization of public services occurs and the motive to help people is replaced by the motive of profit is never a good thing.

Just another way for corporate access to public funds

I work as a federal wildland firefighter and there have been many attempts to replicate the productivity and efficiency of our fire crews. But they all suffer from the fact that they are there just to make a buck with little regard for the honor of serving our nation in this honorable profession. The private firefighters cost much more and they must be on fires at all times to make it worth it......think about what that means for risk management. I think that these problems fit most private takeover of government services.